Why do I have to wait 2 days to receive money after I sell a skin?

[Skrim]

Its year 2024 and still this bs.Steam is so stupid

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Originally posted by Skrim:

Why do I have to wait 2 days to receive money after I sell a skin?

Its year 2024 and still this bs.Steam is so stupid

I told everyone last year that the system Valve has in place is only going to become more strict and flag more sales to put money on hold.

Did anyone listen? No.

[nullable]

Originally posted by Skrim:

Its year 2024 and still this bs.Steam is so stupid

Methinks Valve isn't much concerned with people funding their accounts with market transactions.

[Dodo]

They asked me to approve a sell order via the mobile app, which is considered a 2FA method. But then despite this, they put my money on hold too. First I didn't understand, then I started to read about it. The way this system works is unjustifiably strict. Not only to mention the 2FA approval via the mobile app, but I also have the same IP address for very long periods, as my ISP won't change it. So my login patterns should be considered extremely trustworthy. Also my sell order was nothing extraordinary, just about 5-10% undercut to guarantee a rapid deal, as I planned to gift a friend with R6: Siege that is on sale now from the funds I get from selling my CS crates.

Holding back assets of customers, effectively obstructing their control over their accounts, locking them out from the choice of being self-responsible regarding the security level they consider convenient according to their own convictions is a behaviour unfortunately not unprecedented these years, but are very undesirable, degrading towards the users and are a very steep way to turn satisfied customers into people thinking that the subjectuary company straight even fell to the openly greedy conceited anti-consumer wave of the dark 2020's and thus need to be confronted with their bitter despite...

And again, I'm not speaking against security. I am speaking for reasonable control over my account, for the choice of the security level I consider reasonable for myself at my own responsibility, because no company shall treat their customers as infantiles!

[nullable]

It's your account, but it's Valve's system. You're free to your user-centric opinions, but Valve has their own, and they might have better insight into the issues with their experience that supersedes your desire for instant gratification.

No one is forcing you to use the market.

[Dodo]

Yes, it is their system, but it is us users who keep it alive with our activity and purchases and it is the now 3 decades old global culture of the internet and/or gamers that outlines what de-facto guidelines should be taken as benchmarks for the mechanisms of the system. For example, 2FA is an accepted method, 2 step explicit confirmation (when you get two consecutive warnings and even have to type a word to avow responsibility for your own choice) is an accepted method, but holding back assets, delaying action for DAYS (1-2 hours could be OK, but not days), playing with the precious time of customers is A CONDEMNED METHOD BY THE COMMUNITIY AND SHOULD NEVER BE RESORTED TO IF NOT ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE AND AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUALLY BE REVIEWED BY A LIVE SUPPORT SERVICE AT LEAST.

[mathiodas]

This is a formal complaint that I'd like addressed in regards to the recent addition of "pending Steam Wallet" balance upon the sale of an item on the community market.

It is utterly infuriating that I have missed sales for games and am left with a pending balance for days. There are a few reasons I'm annoyed:

1. I have been logged in for years on the same PC, as well as with the same authenticator. If the pending wallet was meant to prevent large-scale fraud and malicious sales, why would it not be reliant on other factors such as recent logins!? How can you keep my balance pending when I confirmed it on my Steam Authenticator and someone has transferred the funds via purchasing the item? How does this make any sense!?
2. I have missed sales and good prices for certain community market bargains that I've had on my wish list for ages. It's so disappointing that I sell a skin that belongs to me, that I paid for - and then go and get a willing buyer to transfer the funds — all for Steam to withhold that money from me! Can you not see how frustrating this is?
3. I sold a CS:GO skin worth $10, and it was a singular skin, not like I mass sold my inventory. This is such a garbage system that's been implemented, I see this doing more harm than good in the community. Why hasn't there been pre-requisites for it to make wallet funds pending? Why not add things like:
- Recent logins
- IP/ISP variation
- Unusual behaviour (I.E new friends, dramatically fluctuating sale & buy prices on the market etc.)
- Large scale sales! LIKE MULTIPLE ITEMS!!!!

Please, and I beg you sincerely, to either remove this feature or rework it. It's not helpful and it should be a consensual option for the party wh
Formatting help
o is selling the skin as to whether they want a pending balance or not, and this genuinely making me furious with missing out on time sensitive purchases.

I hope you understand my frustration, please get back to me.

[J4MESOX4D]

Originally posted by Skrim:

Its year 2024 and still this bs.Steam is so stupid

What does the year have to do with it? The whole point is that there is a small window for Valve to verify that the funds are clean and the transaction is legitimate so no rollbacks and future losses are incurred for them or the end-user.

Originally posted by baddadan:

*snip

What does other people purchasing your item have to do with your actions? The whole point is to vet the person purchasing, not your actions or status. It doesn't matter what PC you are using or that you've been using the authenticator since 1977 - other people buying has absolutely no bearing on what you've done and it is that which is being scrutinised by Valve.

It's a lot better than selling an item, getting the money, buying a game and then Valve revoking all the proceeds because the original buyer used fraudulent means.

[ReBoot]

Originally posted by Dodo:

Yes, it is their system, but it is us users who keep it alive with our activity and purchases and it is the now 3 decades old global culture of the internet and/or gamers that outlines what de-facto guidelines should be taken as benchmarks for the mechanisms of the system. For example, 2FA is an accepted method, 2 step explicit confirmation (when you get two consecutive warnings and even have to type a word to avow responsibility for your own choice) is an accepted method, but holding back assets, delaying action for DAYS (1-2 hours could be OK, but not days), playing with the precious time of customers is A CONDEMNED METHOD BY THE COMMUNITIY AND SHOULD NEVER BE RESORTED TO IF NOT ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE AND AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUALLY BE REVIEWED BY A LIVE SUPPORT SERVICE AT LEAST.

Feel free to boycott the market, see if others will follow.

[Dodo]

What does the year have to do with it?

Since about 2020 the fundamental interests of consumers (competitive prices, guaranteed quality and instant delivery) are being openly supressed by unacceptable excuses like irrationally radical green ideas, international conflicts failed to keep at bay by civilized standards via the well payed diplomats/politicians and to be relevant here too: data protection and transaction security measures that were never really demanded in that way by the customers and are in fact very likely thought to be just serving disclaiming of responsibilites of otherwise required-to-be-particularly-responsible entities due to their overwhelming market capitalisation and/or cheaply working around everyday corporate challenges that were more and more left without able-minded experts during these dark years (there are natural causes too like the expansion of market thus the dilution of acknowledged professionals in most of the areas, retiring due to their age and also unfortunately the pandemic took irreplaceable victims all around the world). So to say companies these days are tipically lacking the highly experienced, motivated and agile apparatus of workforce they used to have during the golden age of 90's to mid-10s and instead trying to smooth out operations and secure a comfortable financial stream by applying policies that put irrational nuisance towards their customers.

I don't know for sure if unfortunately Valve has started to suffer from this too or not, but these developments might or might not suggest this and I think that is why Skrim mentioned 2024, the year that this gravely decaying state of the fruiting balance between the profit oriented corporate sectors and satisfied customers have became apparent in the most areas of everyday life for more and more people now.

there is a small window for Valve to verify that the funds are clean and the transaction is legitimate

I don' think Valve needs to verify anything if the user has a 2FA authenticator in the form of the mobile app. Even banks recognize this method as a legitimate and secure way of expressing an explicit intent towards a fully binding confirmation of a transaction in question (and they also have the right to simply refuse remedy if the user behaved irresponsible in protecting his/her technical equipment from unauthorized access). Also, presuming that some funds are "not clean" without an obvious evidence is against fundamental civic law priciples (the principle of good faith).

It's a lot better than selling an item, getting the money, buying a game and then Valve revoking all the proceeds because the original buyer used fraudulent means.

I might see your point here, but not see how realistic is using fraudulent means at the item buyer side. Because why would someone buy for example weapon skins for an account that for example he/she have hacked, or why it would be in Valve's extent if someone have used funds aquired using fraudulent means outside Steam? Because as I have mentioned, according the principle of good faith, any fund you hold is to be considered your legitimate asset until explicitly proven otherwise and no party should be held responsible including claims of remedy if it was outside their reasonable extent to recognize obvious signs of malicious activities connected to the funds used in a financial transaction.

[J4MESOX4D]

Originally posted by Dodo:

I don' think Valve needs to verify anything if the user has a 2FA authenticator in the form of the mobile app

2FA bears absolutely no relation to these restrictions. People that have no idea why such measures are in place keep mentioning their account, their Steam Guard, their account age, their 'reputation' but at the end of the day, it is the OTHER account that is making the purchase and it is THAT which is being scrutinised which is causing the tiny 2 day restriction.

It does not matter if you have a 20 year old account with 40,000 games that has been protected by Steam Guard for 12 years and 2FA for 9 - that has absolutely nothing to do with the account that is making the purchase of your item.

A stolen account with a cloned/stolen or fraudulently obtained credit card could be used to inject £2000 in wallet funds in which that money could then be used to purchase your knife. The victim of the card fraud when made aware will then raise a case to get the money back from their provider who will then claim against Steam. That money does not grow on trees so Valve will either have to compensate the entire amount out of their pocket, or the user and all their purchases from the proceeds (store and market) will have their entire transactions rolled-back so they lose everything so funds can be recovered in full. These two days are vital to ensure against any fraud and that the purchase is not commercially driven through market manipulation.

So would you rather wait 48 hours max to receive clean guaranteed funds or would you have the money now at the risk of losing everything down the line if the transaction was found out to stem from fraudulent means? The amount of market fraud and people using 3rd party sites has caused this so you are really blaming the wrong people.

[Dodo]

The victim of the card fraud when made aware will then raise a case to get the money back from their provider who will then claim against Steam.

I would be surprised if payment providers could make a successful claim against a digital merchant party (Steam) because as I have said, the principle of good faith practically breaks the legal responsibility chain regarding the origin of a fund where the payment provider may have the tools and expertise to validate a transaction, but afterwards the merchant is a non-expert party lacking insight to this area and should not be debited when the payment provider fails to recognize and prevent a fraud in time. In other words, the payment provider shall take full responsibility for the assets handled and no further partners shall be held responsible for incidents happening under the expertise areas covered by the paymant provider. And as I have said, companies operating in the financial sector even very often refuse any remedy due to irresponsible user behaviour that made the fraud possible at the first place, so...

It does not matter if you have a 20 year old account with 40,000 games that has been protected by Steam Guard for 12 years and 2FA for 9 - that has absolutely nothing to do with the account that is making the purchase of your item.

Indeed it does, as those you mentioned make me (or anyone else) a highly-esteemed customer who shall be treated caringly and specially not be bothered with sickening bureaucracy as per the fundamental commerce etiquette.

And BTW I mean Steam Guard = 2FA as it technically is.

[Carlos100]

You need to complain to all the people that let themselves get scammed...........thats why steam keeps adding new restrictions

[J4MESOX4D]

Originally posted by Dodo:

The victim of the card fraud when made aware will then raise a case to get the money back from their provider who will then claim against Steam.

I would be surprised if payment providers could make a successful claim against a digital merchant party (Steam) because as I have said, the principle of good faith practically breaks the legal responsibility chain regarding the origin of a fund where the payment provider may have the tools and expertise to validate a transaction, but afterwards the merchant is a non-expert party lacking insight to this area and should not be debited when the payment provider fails to recognize and prevent a fraud in time. In other words, the payment provider shall take full responsibility for the assets handled and no further partners shall be held responsible for incidents happening under the expertise areas covered by the paymant provider. And as I have said, companies operating in the financial sector even very often refuse any remedy due to irresponsible user behaviour that made the fraud possible at the first place, so...

It does not matter if you have a 20 year old account with 40,000 games that has been protected by Steam Guard for 12 years and 2FA for 9 - that has absolutely nothing to do with the account that is making the purchase of your item.

Indeed it does, as those you mentioned make me (or anyone else) a highly-esteemed customer who shall be treated caringly and specially not be bothered with sickening bureaucracy as per the fundamental commerce etiquette.

And BTW I mean Steam Guard = 2FA as it technically is.

Every payment provider on the planet can authorise a claim or initiate a chargeback against a retailer where there is a crime reference number, or whereby fraud has been detected. It is wholly illegal for companies to hold or benefit from fraudulent funds especially if they are made aware. Chargeback fees are also incredibly expensive from the likes of PayPal which the merchant is responsible for as they have facilitated fraud so the likes of Valve have to protect themselves with restrictions and also be compliant when presented with such cases.

Every customer is also treated the same on this platform.

[ReBoot]

Originally posted by Dodo:

Indeed it does, as those you mentioned make me (or anyone else) a highly-esteemed customer who shall be treated caringly and specially not be bothered with sickening bureaucracy as per the fundamental commerce etiquette.

Get over yourself. You're grossly overestimading your importance.

[crunchyfrog]

It's not stupid, you just might not understand why it happens.

The sad reality is those of us who have been here years have seen many times every day accounts get stolen or hijacked.

Back in the day before such cooldowns, it would mean that anyone stealing an account could empty it instantly. And Valve couldn't get that back.

So what would you rather have? Security or risk?